Re: Working Group Decision on ISSUE-131 caret-location-api

Sure, you had replied only to me. I thought you had wanted me to just reply
to you.

The public working group is now cc'd.

Rich Schwerdtfeger
CTO Accessibility Software Group



From:	Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>
To:	Richard Schwerdtfeger/Austin/IBM@IBMUS
Date:	04/29/2011 04:58 PM
Subject:	Re: Working Group Decision on ISSUE-131 caret-location-api



On Fri, Apr 29, 2011 at 2:41 PM, Richard Schwerdtfeger
<schwer@us.ibm.com> wrote:
>
>
> Rich Schwerdtfeger
> CTO Accessibility Software Group
>
> Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc> wrote on 04/29/2011 04:22:11 PM:
>
>> From: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>
>> To: Richard Schwerdtfeger/Austin/IBM@IBMUS
>> Date: 04/29/2011 04:23 PM
>> Subject: Re: Working Group Decision on ISSUE-131 caret-location-api
>>
>> On Fri, Apr 29, 2011 at 2:13 PM, Richard Schwerdtfeger
>> <schwer@us.ibm.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> > Rich Schwerdtfeger
>> > CTO Accessibility Software Group
>> >
>> > Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc> wrote on 04/29/2011 03:55:52 PM:
>> >
>> >> From: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>
>> >> To: Richard Schwerdtfeger/Austin/IBM@IBMUS
>> >> Cc: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>, www-archive
<www-archive@w3.org>
>> >> Date: 04/29/2011 03:56 PM
>> >> Subject: Re: Working Group Decision on ISSUE-131 caret-location-api
>> >>
>> >> On Fri, Apr 29, 2011 at 1:43 PM, Richard Schwerdtfeger
>> >> <schwer@us.ibm.com> wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > Rich Schwerdtfeger
>> >> > CTO Accessibility Software Group
>> >> >
>> >> > Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc> wrote on 04/29/2011 03:29:02 PM:
>> >> >
>> >> >> From: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>
>> >> >> To: Richard Schwerdtfeger/Austin/IBM@IBMUS
>> >> >> Cc: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>, www-archive
>> >> >> <www-archive@w3.org>
>> >> >> Date: 04/29/2011 03:33 PM
>> >> >> Subject: Re: Working Group Decision on ISSUE-131
caret-location-api
>> >> >>
>> >> >> On Fri, Apr 29, 2011 at 12:32 PM, Richard Schwerdtfeger
>> >> >> <schwer@us.ibm.com> wrote:
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > Rich Schwerdtfeger
>> >> >> > CTO Accessibility Software Group
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc> wrote on 04/29/2011 01:47:47
PM:
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> From: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>
>> >> >> >> To: Richard Schwerdtfeger/Austin/IBM@IBMUS
>> >> >> >> Cc: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>, www-archive
>> >> >> >> <www-archive@w3.org>
>> >> >> >> Date: 04/29/2011 01:49 PM
>> >> >> >> Subject: Re: Working Group Decision on ISSUE-131
>> >> >> >> caret-location-api
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> On Fri, Apr 29, 2011 at 11:10 AM, Richard Schwerdtfeger
>> >> >> >> <schwer@us.ibm.com> wrote:
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> > Rich Schwerdtfeger
>> >> >> >> > CTO Accessibility Software Group
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> > Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc> wrote on 04/29/2011 12:42:23
>> >> >> >> > PM:
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >> From: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>
>> >> >> >> >> To: Richard Schwerdtfeger/Austin/IBM@IBMUS
>> >> >> >> >> Cc: www-archive <www-archive@w3.org>, Sam Ruby
>> >> >> >> >> <rubys@intertwingly.net>
>> >> >> >> >> Date: 04/29/2011 12:43 PM
>> >> >> >> >> Subject: Re: Working Group Decision on ISSUE-131
>> >> >> >> >> caret-location-api
>> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> Richard,
>> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> I will send a technical reply on list as well, but I really
>> >> >> >> >> don't
>> >> >> >> >> appreciate the contents of the below email.
>> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> You start out by accusing me of "speaking out of both sides
of
>> >> >> >> >> [my]
>> >> >> >> >> mouth". I have no idea what this accusation is based on? If
>> >> >> >> >> you
>> >> >> >> >> really truly believe that is the case, then you better
provide
>> >> >> >> >> more
>> >> >> >> >> to substantiate this accusation.
>> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> > Yes. Does Firefox support cookies? Cookies are vehicle for
>> >> >> >> > fingerprinting.
>> >> >> >> > That is acceptable but blink rate is not? To me that says you
>> >> >> >> > are
>> >> >> >> > speaking
>> >> >> >> > outside both sides of your face. The use of cookies is far
>> >> >> >> > worse
>> >> >> >> > for
>> >> >> >> > fingerprinting than a user's blink rate.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> First off, I recommend that you read the other replies in this
>> >> >> >> thread
>> >> >> >> about fingerprinting as they explain the relationship between
>> >> >> >> fingerprinting and cookies. The gist of it is that browsers are
>> >> >> >> aware
>> >> >> >> that the set of cookies the user has is something that
identifies
>> >> >> >> him/her on the web. Thus the browser can manage that identity,
>> >> >> >> for
>> >> >> >> example using features like private browsing. Statistical
>> >> >> >> fingerprinting however, is not something we can manage.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> > I understand the issue but nobody is removing the problem and as
I
>> >> >> > said
>> >> >> > not
>> >> >> > everyone pays attention to the private browsing features,
>> >> >> > especially
>> >> >> > seniors.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> I have a hard time understanding what you are saying. Of course
not
>> >> >> everyone cares about privacy, just like not everyone cares about
>> >> >> accessibility. How does that matter?
>> >> >>
>> >> > I am simply saying that private browsing features are inadequate,
in
>> >> > eliminating the privacy issue.
>> >> > I used seniors as an example.
>> >>
>> >> Nor are our browser accessibility features. That doesn't mean we're
>> >> going to give up and do nothing. I'm failing to see your point.
>> >>
>> >> >> >> Second, cookies were invented a long time ago, way before
anyone
>> >> >> >> had
>> >> >> >> privacy on the web in mind. If we were to design them today
we'd
>> >> >> >> do
>> >> >> >> it
>> >> >> >> significantly differently. We're going through great pains to
try
>> >> >> >> to
>> >> >> >> fix them now without breaking the web to the extent that no-one
>> >> >> >> would
>> >> >> >> use our browser.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> > I understand that too. I really do understand all your
>> >> >> > justification
>> >> >> > for
>> >> >> > why
>> >> >> > you don't remove cookies. However, I do not think that blink
rate
>> >> >> > comes
>> >> >> > should be elevated to the level of fingerprinting that is
already
>> >> >> > allowed by
>> >> >> > cookies.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> It's not, I never said it was. I'm just saying that i'm opposed to
>> >> >> add
>> >> >> it to Firefox given that the value vs. cost ratio is so bad.
>> >> >> Included
>> >> >> in that cost is the cost to privacy.
>> >> >>
>> >> > We could go back and forth on this forever.
>> >> >
>> >> > How about we get back to the question of implementation. Will
Mozilla
>> >> > implement the canvas accessibility features proposed for
>> >> > caret/selection?
>> >>
>> >> I don't even know the whole feature set that is involved with
>> >> caret/selection, so I can't say. But the drawFocusRing and
>> >> setSelectionCaretRect functions look reasonable to me so as far as
I'm
>> >> concerned I think we should implement them. But I also don't
>> >> understand why you are all of a sudden asking?
>> >>
>> >> And I'm not planning on going back and forth forever. I have more
>> >> productive things to do.
>> >>
>> > OK. And the blinkPeriod (Ian's new wording)?
>>
>> I believe I enumerated a number of reasons why I think that would be
>> bad to implement. I also have asked several times why you even
>> consider it a accessibility issue and you have yet to respond.
>
> Sorry about that. I thought that was clear from the change proposal. Let
me
> elaborate:
>
> High frequency blink rates (or "periods" to use the new term) can cause
> seizures in users with epilepsy. This is documented in the WCAG
> accessibility guidelines. Also, certain blink rates may be distracting to
> some users. Consequently, user may prefer to modify the blink period in
the
> operating system. In fact, both Windows and Mac OSX provide for this
feature
> (I need to check on Linux and the various mobile devices). Support for
> system accessibility features like font and color settings is a
government
> accessibility requirement as is blink rate. Therefore, we need to expose
> that information to the developer who may:
>
> - draw a caret
> - cause something to blink on their screen other than caret
>
> Recently the Department of Justice has stated that their interpretation
of
> the Americans with Disabilities Act is that it applies to web sites. If
an
> author were to implement flashing such that it would cause an issue for a
> user it could result in a legal investigation. By providing access to
this
> system feature we provide the author with the necessary information
required
> to adjust their program.
>
> Cheers,
> Rich
>
> so they may adjust their blink period to meet the needs of the user.

Can you please reply to this on list? I have as a general rule of
thumb to not discuss these types on things in private threads as to
allow more participation.

/ Jonas